Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Discuss...

AZGrizFan wrote:Discuss...

Shouldn't be a judge doing this, this should've been an Executive Order by Obama as one of the first things he did once he got into office and then Congress should've been pressured to change the law. No reason why this couldn't have been done right away.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Discuss...

Shouldn't be a judge doing this, this should've been an Executive Order by Obama as one of the first things he did once he got into office and then Congress should've been pressured to change the law. No reason why this couldn't have been done right away.

And after 11/2 congress won't have the votes to change it.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Shouldn't be a judge doing this, this should've been an Executive Order by Obama as one of the first things he did once he got into office and then Congress should've been pressured to change the law. No reason why this couldn't have been done right away.

And after 11/2 congress won't have the votes to change it.

I don't know if that is the case. I think you are seeing far less opposition to repealing this these days, I think it is just a matter of timing and execution as to how to make it happen. I don't have a problem with removing the policy, but I want us to implement or remove, how ever you want to look at it, the right way while we have troops in the field.

AZGrizFan wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Shouldn't be a judge doing this, this should've been an Executive Order by Obama as one of the first things he did once he got into office and then Congress should've been pressured to change the law. No reason why this couldn't have been done right away.

And after 11/2 congress won't have the votes to change it.

your knowledge fails you. After 1/3 they may not have the votes to change it... But until 1/3 no matter what happens 11/2 they still have the votes to change it.

UNHWildCats wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
And after 11/2 congress won't have the votes to change it.

your knowledge fails you. After 1/3 they may not have the votes to change it... But until 1/3 no matter what happens 11/2 they still have the votes to change it.

Well, you know what I meant.

GannonFan wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Discuss...

Shouldn't be a judge doing this, this should've been an Executive Order by Obama as one of the first things he did once he got into office and then Congress should've been pressured to change the law. No reason why this couldn't have been done right away.

Agreed.

D1B wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
Shouldn't be a judge doing this, this should've been an Executive Order by Obama as one of the first things he did once he got into office and then Congress should've been pressured to change the law. No reason why this couldn't have been done right away.

Agreed.

Agreed. The Harry Reid method of attempting to attach it to the defense appropriations bill was lame.

Democracy and the Constituion are severely undermined when judges such as this legislate from the bench.

Heard on the news that the lawsuit that was filed to turn this over was filed by the Log Cabin Republicans.

Does that mean the Republicans are doing more for gays than Obama?

native wrote:Democracy and the Constituion are severely undermined when judges such as this legislate from the bench.

By suspending a policy that is quite clearly discrimination? Really?

Benne wrote:

native wrote:Democracy and the Constituion are severely undermined when judges such as this legislate from the bench.

By suspending a policy that is quite clearly discrimination? Really?

Yes, really. Should be a hanging offense for judges.

Just so we're clear then. A person who has every skill necessary to do their job, but can get fired for something completely unrelated to their job is not discrimination? I guess I would feel differently if I could get kicked out of the military for telling people I have a wife.

native wrote:

Benne wrote:
By suspending a policy that is quite clearly discrimination? Really?

Yes, really. Should be a hanging offense for judges.

Then you obviously don't have a clue as to the role of the judiciary in the Constitution.

Benne wrote:Just so we're clear then. A person who has every skill necessary to do their job, but can get fired for something completely unrelated to their job is not discrimination? I guess I would feel differently if I could get kicked out of the military for telling people I have a wife.

Maintaining unit cohesion and efficiency has everything to do with skills necessary to perform the military mission. There may come a day when a repeal of DADT supports both efficiency and unit cohesion, but today is not that day, and the federal judges interfering in this issue are way out of their league.

Just so we're clear.

native wrote:

Benne wrote:Just so we're clear then. A person who has every skill necessary to do their job, but can get fired for something completely unrelated to their job is not discrimination? I guess I would feel differently if I could get kicked out of the military for telling people I have a wife.

Maintaining unit cohesion and efficiency has everything to do with skills necessary to perform the military mission. There may come a day when a repeal of DADT supports both efficiency and unit cohesion, but today is not that day, and the federal judges interfering in this issue are way out of their league.

Just so we're clear.

That was exactly the reasoning for keeping the military segregated in the last century. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

native wrote:

Benne wrote:Just so we're clear then. A person who has every skill necessary to do their job, but can get fired for something completely unrelated to their job is not discrimination? I guess I would feel differently if I could get kicked out of the military for telling people I have a wife.

Maintaining unit cohesion and efficiency has everything to do with skills necessary to perform the military mission. There may come a day when a repeal of DADT supports both efficiency and unit cohesion, but today is not that day, and the federal judges interfering in this issue are way out of their league.

Just so we're clear.

I agree with the statement, but also agree that the statement has absolutely nothing to do with a person's sexual orientation.

I have no problem with it, but agree that the JUDGE is out of line....Obama needs to get off his dead ass and deal with this.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
Maintaining unit cohesion and efficiency has everything to do with skills necessary to perform the military mission. There may come a day when a repeal of DADT supports both efficiency and unit cohesion, but today is not that day, and the federal judges interfering in this issue are way out of their league.

Just so we're clear.

That was exactly the reasoning for keeping the military segregated in the last century. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Your point is well taken, BlueHen86. It was indeed wrong then, but it is not wrong now. Nobody is prohibited from serving by DADT because of their predispositions, they are just prohibited from wearing it on their sleeves.

dbackjon wrote:

native wrote:
Yes, really. Should be a hanging offense for judges.

Then you obviously don't have a clue as to the role of the judiciary in the Constitution.

Your self obsessed political agenda is not "inherent" in natural law or the Constitution, just waiting for some judge to "discover" it, as you imagine. Some of your political agenda is appropriate, and some of it is made out of whole cloth.

native wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
That was exactly the reasoning for keeping the military segregated in the last century. It was wrong then and it's wrong now.

Your point is well taken, BlueHen86. It was indeed wrong then, but it is not wrong now. Nobody is prohibited from serving by DADT because of their predispositions, they are just prohibited from wearing it on their sleeves.

What is wrong with "wearing it on their sleeves"? Can a Muslim/Christian/Jew wear their religion on their sleeves and still serve? Seems silly to pick sexual preference (which may be no more of a choice than skin or eye color) and tell people they can't wear it on their sleeves, but allow a member of any faith (which is a choice) to wear it on their sleeve.

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:
Then you obviously don't have a clue as to the role of the judiciary in the Constitution.

Your self obsessed political agenda is not "inherent" in natural law or the Constitution, just waiting for some judge to "discover" it, as you imagine. Some of your political agenda is appropriate, and some of it is made out of whole cloth.

My only obsession is equality. You know, one of the bedrocks that the country was founded on, and we are still fighting to achieve 230+ later.

It IS inherent in the Constitution. And your view of Natural Law is extremely flawed.

dbackjon wrote:

native wrote:
Your self obsessed political agenda is not "inherent" in natural law or the Constitution, just waiting for some judge to "discover" it, as you imagine. Some of your political agenda is appropriate, and some of it is made out of whole cloth.

My only obsession is equality. You know, one of the bedrocks that the country was founded on, and we are still fighting to achieve 230+ later.

It IS inherent in the Constitution. And your view of Natural Law is extremely flawed.

No Jon. Your obsession is for social and legal validation for the tingly feeling at the tip of your dick and that queasy feeling in the pit of your stomach.

Gay "marriage" and forced homosexual socialization of school children is not a bedrock of freedom, equality or the Constitution.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
Your point is well taken, BlueHen86. It was indeed wrong then, but it is not wrong now. Nobody is prohibited from serving by DADT because of their predispositions, they are just prohibited from wearing it on their sleeves.

What is wrong with "wearing it on their sleeves"? Can a Muslim/Christian/Jew wear their religion on their sleeves and still serve? Seems silly to pick sexual preference (which may be no more of a choice than skin or eye color) and tell people they can't wear it on their sleeves, but allow a member of any faith (which is a choice) to wear it on their sleeve.

Repeal of DADT may well come in due time by the legislative process, BlueHen86. It should not come by judicial activism.

Unlike eye color or skin color, there is a behavioral component to sexual behavior, just as your post interestingly and surprisingly implies.

DADT is the business of every voting citizen, not just the military. If you want it repealed, get it done legislatively.

native wrote:

BlueHen86 wrote:
What is wrong with "wearing it on their sleeves"? Can a Muslim/Christian/Jew wear their religion on their sleeves and still serve? Seems silly to pick sexual preference (which may be no more of a choice than skin or eye color) and tell people they can't wear it on their sleeves, but allow a member of any faith (which is a choice) to wear it on their sleeve.

Repeal of DADT may well come in due time by the legislative process, BlueHen86. It should not come by judicial activism.

Unlike eye color or skin color, there is a behavioral component to sexual behavior, just as your post interestingly and surprisingly implies.

DADT is the business of every voting citizen, not just the military. If you want it repealed, get it done legislatively.

True. And so what? There is a behavioral component to practicing ones religion. I'm more concerned about the guy who wants to blow me up than I am about the one who wants to blow me.

BlueHen86 wrote:

native wrote:
Repeal of DADT may well come in due time by the legislative process, BlueHen86. It should not come by judicial activism.

Unlike eye color or skin color, there is a behavioral component to sexual behavior, just as your post interestingly and surprisingly implies.

DADT is the business of every voting citizen, not just the military. If you want it repealed, get it done legislatively.

True. And so what? There is a behavioral component to practicing ones religion. I'm more concerned about the guy who wants to blow me up than I am about the one who wants to blow me.

I thought that might be where you were going with this. Fine. Pursue it legislatively, not judicially. If DADT repeal passes, fine. If it fails, fine. DADT is a policy that has served the country, the military, and gay people well. Yes, gay people.

I share your concern for someone who is trying to blow me up, BlueHen86, but I do not share your professed enthusiasm for a surprise blow job. To me, it is not an either/or type of choice.